Residual Effects of Different Cropping Systems on Physicochemical Properties and the Activity of Phosphatases of Soil
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title: Can be improved, The authors determined 2 phosphatase enzymes only!!
Abstract: can be improved to present the results obtained.
References: They have 70 citation, i think it is too much, they can ignore the old citation
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The language and explanations/justifications throughout the manuscript (literature review and the present study findings) need clarification. The wording is often unclear or vague. The main ideas of the discussion need to be clarified and emphasized, also through revising language. The very poor use of the English language made it difficult to understand the flow of thoughts, so I may have misunderstood some of them.
In Line 112, please superscript i.e. (51o18’23”N; 22o16’02”E)
Line113, superscript it i.e . 30 m2
Line 122, Table1, revise this sentence “Properties of the initial soil of the experiment in the 0–30 cm soil layer.” instead write this, Initial properties of the soil in 0-30 cm layer.
In Table 1, it is unclear, what is d.m mean? And also please add the footnote of the table to explain the parameters and abbreviation which are used.
Line 134, 135, please mentions the exact NPK application rate instead of using percentage, it looking vague and weird.
Line 136, 139, t.ha-1 superscript it.
Line 142, 143, Please write chemical formulas in proper way i.e. use superscript and subscript etc.
Line 151, Table, please double check the dates of sowing and harvesting , and how long these crops have been growing.
Why there is a same name of the tables 3, and table 3. dates of sowing maybe as Table 3, and weather’s conditons may as Table 4. Carefully revise this manuscript. It seems that authors did not read it carefully.
Line 178, 180. Please revise these lines. Instead, it can be written as “Soil samples for the biochemical analyses were collected, sieved through a 2-mm sieve, and stored at 4 ᵒC according to the principles specified in ISO 18400 [31]. Soil samples for physicochemical analyses were dried at room temperature and ground in a soil mill.”
Line 182, revise this sentence. Does not make sense.
Line 199, CECIL CE 2011 double check this ..? write exact method used for the determination of enzymes using spectrophotometer.
Line 509-512, rewrite these lines. English and sentence structure need to improve.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Abstract
Abstract is very difficult to understand. Please rewrite the section considering some specific points mentioned below:
L12: Rewrite the preamble “The basic principle of both conventional and organic farming is crop production”
L17: Replace ‘method’ with ‘design’. Write ‘with’ in place of ‘in’
L18: “spring wheat was sown as a test crop in 2020” What was the earlier test crop?
L19: “Tillage for spring wheat in 2020 was typical” What do the author mean by typical?
Material And Methods
L34: Delete ‘a’
L37: Replace ‘high’ with ‘higher’
L38-41: “Over the last few decades …………………production aimed at increasing yields”. Rewrite the sentences for clarity
L42: Delete “among other things”
L43: Put comma between “acidification and water”
L105: Rewrite the sentence for clarity “The aim of the field experiment conducted in 2020 was to evaluate the following effect of 10-year winter wheat and sugar beet cultivation”
L112: Superscript the degree symbol in latitude and longitude
L114: Superscript ‘m2’
L116: Which system of soil textural classification followed for the particle size distribution?
L130-132: Clearly define the treatments. Specify the main plot and sub plot treatment, as split plot design is mentioned in the MS
L136,138: How does the pig manure dose has been decided?
L196-197: Please cite the original reference followed for determination of acid and alkaline phosphatase activity. Buffer pH was varied from the methodology descried by “Tabatabai and Bremner”. Please state the reason behind such pH modification. Tabatabai and Bremner was not mentioned in the reference list.
L200-206: Does the ratio of AlPh/AcPh is essential for examining the need of the liming treatment. Soil pH is sufficient enough for this information. Please explain the significance of the ratio.
L210: Why One-way ANOVA was used as the design of experiment is split plot? Statistical analysis and specific mean test was seems to be erroneous. Please do the statistical analysis again and represent the main plot and subplot effect separately followed by interaction effect. Please do the separate statistical analysis for the two depths.
Please provide the treatment in details. Please include the recommended fertilizer dose for all crops. Please check the nutrient content of pig manure whether it is P/K instead of P2O5/K2O.
Result:
Result section was very poorly written. It is very difficult to follow by the readers. Please rewrite the result after carry out the statistical analysis as mentioned above.
Why the author put more emphasis on the year of soil sample collection i.e. 2020? The results were the cumulative impact of last 10 years.
L242-243: What is the reason behind the higher pHKCl values for soil cultivated in the conventional organic system compared to the conventional system? Although, there is non-significant difference for sugar beet system.
L254-255; L418-423: Why the CEC is higher in the conventional system where less amount of organic manure was applied?
Why the authors only considered P as a major factor of production excluding N & K? What is caused behind this high P content in soil?
Please check the auto-correlation of the parameters mentioned in the Table 11
Discussion
L418-423: Why the CEC is higher in the conventional system where less amount of organic manure was applied?
L425-427: “The main sources of organic matter…………. crop species composition (e.g. monoculture or crop rotation)” The quantity of the cumulative carbon input was almost similar for both the farming system so their impact will be non-significant.
L494-496: This statement may not be correct. There is a contradictory result between Table 4 and Table 7, where AlPh/AcPh ratio was below 0.5, but pH was in normal range.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The MS (Successive effects of different cropping systems on selected physicochemical and biochemical soil properties and enzymatic pH index) entails field evaluation of residual effect of 10-year winter wheat and sugar beet cultivation under conventional and organic systems on the physicochemical and biochemical properties and enzymatic pH index of lessive soil developed from loess under climatic conditions of south-eastern Poland. The MS has been written in coherent manner in a scientifically sound way. The study can of interest to wide readers of the AGRICULTURE and fits well within scope and aims of the AGRICULTURE. However I have pointed out few pertinent clarifications/corrections for author’s consideration in order to impart further soundness and explicitly to the content of MS.
TITLE
It is perhaps better to replace “successive effects” with “residual effects”. In addition, “selected” might be omitted to make the title brief and comprehensive.
ABSTRACT
--The starting phrase is the most important one to portrait the problem statement explicitly and to signify the pertinence of physico-bio-chemical traits of the soil and thus it is better to replace the starting phrase that is too generalized.
--The employed treatments need to be described clearly for reader’s convenience.
--The response variables must be described in a single phrase.
--Results have been described in a too generalized way like “The obtained results indicate that the organic farming system contributed to the improvement of soil pHKCl compared to the conventional system” there must be concrete finding in percentage or integral values based on recorded data.
-- Again generalized findings have been given “improvements were recorded in the chemical indicators of loess soil quality (TOC, TN and TOC/TN) and P content, as well as acid phosphatase and alkaline phosphatase activities” percentage or integral values need to be given in order to give precise idea of the effectiveness of organic systems over conventional system.
--It is perhaps better to add recommendation/conclusive statement as last phrase of the abstract based on recorded results.
KEYWORDS: Replace keywords with other high frequency relevant words by omitting those words that are present in the title of the MS.
INTRODUCTION
--Too generalized statements like “The primary objective of both conventional and organic agriculture is crop production” “Soil plays a key role in sustainable land management and food production” “Soil is a natural habitat for a variety of living organisms” might be omitted.
--Authors need to add more peer-findings on organic agriculture benefits with respect to lesser environment pollution, improvement in physico-bio-chemical characteristics of the soil and challenges/limitation pertaining to yield comparison with conventional farming systems.
-- The logic behind “Research hypothesis” needs to be described in a single phrase.
METHODOLOGY
--It is better to add methodologies, reagents and apparatus (manufacturer info missing that may also be added) used in a tabular form for all response variables of the soil.
--Statistical analyses may be described in a continuous write-up instead of making points/bullets.
--Table 3: better to add months name (March-August) instead of Roman numbering.
-- “Soil material for physicochemical and biochemical analyses was collected in August 2020, after harvesting spring wheat, which was a test crop for the value of sites” what is meant by value of site???
--Why did soil samples collection from 0-15 cm not considered?
--How Soil samples collection spots were identified???
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
--Results must be described under separate headings/sub-headings for reader’s convenience.
--Table 7: “experimental factors” must be described in brackets for making the title self-explanatory.
--Purpose of adding tree diagrams and Elucidean distance between clusters needs to be highlighted.
--Authors have interpreted results in a coherent manner.
CONCLUSIONS
Authors must explicitly elucidate whether obtained findings were in line/partially/antagonistic with postulated hypothesis.
It is better to avoid citation in conclusion rather conclusion needs to be drawn on recorded findings.
“To achieve both objectives, research on the impact of an organic system of growing different species in rotation should be continued and the results implemented” needs to be rephrased.
Limitation of the study might be also be added along with future perspectives of recorded results/recommendations.
Language of the content must be edited thoroughly.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Author(s) has substantially improved the manuscript and all the suggestions incorporated. So I suggest to accept the manuscript in its present form.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The statistical analysis need further refinement in the light of the experimental design in the field. some of the queries are not attended by the authors
L494-496: This statement may not be correct. There is a contradictory result between Table 4 and Table 7, where AlPh/AcPh ratio was below 0.5, but pH was in normal range.
Why the authors only considered P as a major factor of production excluding N & K? What is caused behind this high P content in soil?
Why the author put more emphasis on the year of soil sample collection i.e. 2020? The results were the cumulative impact of last 10 years.
Why One-way ANOVA was used as the design of experiment is split plot? Statistical analysis and specific mean test was seems to be erroneous. Please do the statistical analysis again and represent the main plot and subplot effect separately followed by interaction effect. Please do the separate statistical analysis for the two depths.
Please check the auto-correlation of the parameters mentioned in the Table 11: This point has been raised because the correlation study was made with the interlinked and very few no. of parameters
Conclusion should be in accordance of the study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
